Ring species

[guzman]

A Challenge for Creationists! (I like this word challenge)

Since LittleNipper consistently ignored this question in another thread, I thought I'd give it a whole thread of its own. I'm hoping that some creationist will drop by and give their thoughts.

THE FACTS

Ensatina eschscholtzi is a lungless salamander native to western North America. Its distribution forms a ring around the Great Central Valley of California; the salamanders are not found inside the valley itself.

If we start from the southern end of the valley and follow it north and then south again on the other side, we encounter several subspecies of Ensatina salamanders. These overlap in distribution and interbreed with their neighbours. Furthermore, their appearance shows a gradual increase in the degree and regularity of patterning from simple brownish unpatterned E. e. eschscholzi to bright orange-and-black banded E. e. klauberi.

With the klauberi subspecies we arrive back to our starting point. Klauberi and eschscholzi overlap but do not interbreed, and they look very distinct. They are clearly different species. Yet they are connected by a continuum of more or less transitional forms that are perfectly capable of interbreeding with their neighbours.

THE CHALLENGE

Therefore I ask the creationists who are willing to take up the challenge:

(1) How many species is Ensatina eschscholzi? Why?

(2) If it is more than one, where does the boundary between the species exist?

(3) How do you explain ring species such as Ensatina in terms of creationism? "Goddidit" and "just because" are not sufficient explanations.

first of all, I would like you to present me the evidence that these cannot breed. Second of all, even if they do not breed, that is no indication that the mechanism responsible were blind mutations culled by selection. ToE doesn't win by default....it's never proven itself anywhere else -- why there? Creationists don't deny change, we deny darwinian mechanisms are responsible.

 

[Blayz]

Creationists don't deny change, we deny darwinian mechanisms are responsible.

Without supplying an equal or better hypothesis to fill the gap, which brings me back to my challenge which you still haven't even responded to.

It's because you can't, isn't it? You have no answer at all. Feel free to admit such and I will stop pestering you about it.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

first of all, I would like you to present me the evidence that these cannot breed. Second of all, even if they do not breed, that is no indication that the mechanism responsible were blind mutations culled by selection. ToE doesn't win by default....it's never proven itself anywhere else -- why there? Creationists don't deny change, we deny darwinian mechanisms are responsible.

well since mutations giving rise to new genes (nylon bacteria and Morgan's drosophilas) and natural selection (antibiotic resistance and sickle cell prevalence in malaria regions) have been demonstrated to occur, you dont have a leg to stand on with that statement.

 

[Naraoia]

first of all, I would like you to present me the evidence that these cannot breed.

For a starter I can present you evidence that E. e. eschscholzi and E. e. klauberi at the southern end of their distributions haven't been interbreeding for a while. THIS ought to be freely available from JSTOR. I'm not sure if they could interbreed (somewhat north of the place where they weren't found to there are places where a small number of hybrids can be found), however, we accept species that don't interbreed although they could as distinct species (Pundamilia pundamilia & P. nyererei, my favourite two Lake Victoria fish). You can of course dispute that definition - the entire species concept is a very complicated and disputed thing. Although the idea that reproductive isolation is a key step in speciation isn't.

Second of all, even if they do not breed, that is no indication that the mechanism responsible were blind mutations culled by selection.

Perhaps. How about the experiment in which they produced two non-interbreeding fruit fly populations from a single stock simply by applying selection based on the choices the flies took in a maze? Sorry, I can't seem to find the reference at the moment but if you like I can dig through my evolutionary biology notes tomorrow (which is today, I really need to go to bed now).

ToE doesn't win by default....

No it doesn't...

it's never proven itself anywhere else -- why there?

This simply isn't true. The Drosophila selection experiment is one of the more obvious examples, and see countless posts here and countless websites and books out there for the more indirect evidence.

Creationists don't deny change, we deny darwinian mechanisms are responsible.

What do you propose instead?

 

[Aggie]

Aggie, here it is plain and simple:

• Where the Bible disagrees with science --- science is wrong.

I can't make it any plainer than that.

If I made any statements to the contrary --- I was wrong.

I’ve addressed this before in this thread, and I’m still waiting to see whether you’re going to answer what I asked you about it there. Here it is again:

You’ve told me before that fulfilled prophecies are your reason for trusting the Bible, and I’m not going to argue with that. But you’re still missing my point. In order to see that these prophecies have actually been fulfilled, you still have to observe what’s going on in the physical world, and determine logically that this is what the prophecies were referring to. In the case of Amos 9:15, for example, this reason for trusting the Bible requires you to understand enough about world history to know that Isreal was created as a country in 1948.

In the example you described, your reason for trusting the Bible is because based on your observations of the physical world, the Bible seems to be accurately describing it. What I’m saying is that if this is your reason for trusting the Bible, then when you see an example of the Bible appearing to condtradict the physical world, then that is—by definition—something that makes your reason for trusting the Bible weaker. If your reason for trusting the Bible is based on its consistency with the physical world, how is it that when you find out that there are some examples where they appear to not be consistent, this causes you to mistrust the physical world rather than the Bible?

 

[guzman]

For a starter I can present you evidence that E. e. eschscholzi and E. e. klauberi at the southern end of their distributions haven't been interbreeding for a while. THIS ought to be freely available from JSTOR. I'm not sure if they could interbreed (somewhat north of the place where they weren't found to there are places where a small number of hybrids can be found),

So does this simply mean that you have no evidence that any evolutionary biologist has attempted to see if any so-called "ring species" indeed cannot interbreed? Hint: "cannot" and "will not" are different. One is physical and one is mental. There are lots of people I could breed with -- but I choose not to. This does not confirm evolution.


however, we accept species that don't interbreed although they could as distinct species (Pundamilia pundamilia & P. nyererei, my favourite two Lake Victoria fish).

You have no idea if they are different "species" or not...have they been bred to see if they can produce viable offspring? I bet they can.

 

[NailsII]

So does this simply mean that you have no evidence that any evolutionary biologist has attempted to see if any so-called "ring species" indeed cannot interbreed? Hint: "cannot" and "will not" are different. One is physical and one is mental. There are lots of people I could breed with -- but I choose not to. This does not confirm evolution.

however, we accept species that don't interbreed although they could as distinct species (Pundamilia pundamilia & P. nyererei, my favourite two Lake Victoria fish).

You have no idea if they are different "species" or not...have they been bred to see if they can produce viable offspring? I bet they can.

Cannot and will not interbreed are different, but it doesn't change the fact that in seperated populations evolution takes a slightly different twist in each population.
Look at humans - understand why Africans are typically dark-skinned, Europeans fair skinned. Why isolated populations have distinguishing features (ginger hair in celtic and nordic populations), Mongol features etc.

But why do closely related (but different) species not interbreed? And why have you made a distinction between 'mental' and 'physical' effects that can hinder reproduction? They are all based on the genetic information carried by the individual.

First, physical seperation may prevent the obvious act from taking place. A snail population at one side of a mountain range is incredibly unlikely to breed with others at the other side.
Then, as change slowly accumulates, physical differences may influence behaviour. Slight differences in coloration may be sufficient, behavioural patterns may be slightly different (different times of activity, habitat differences etc.)
Then, genetic change itself can become large enough by acculmulation to make breeding impossible - like human-chimp for example (we have 2 fewer chromosomes as our No 2 is two chimp chromosomes fused together).
Or even make breeding unsuccesful - think of an ass.
Two related species interbreed and produce an infertile hybrid offspring.
Incompatable blood groups, tissue types etc.
Then there is physical incompatability - a mouse and an elephant could never naturally.... i think you get the picture.
Another example of a ring species is one most of us can see quite clearly - herring gulls and lesser-backed gulls. Larus argentatus and Larus fuscus.
If you could look back in time, you would see a similar effect in humans.
If each of your maternal parents and parents' parents (and so on) stood shoulder to shoulder, each one is the same species as the next.
But jump 50,000 years down, and there could be differences that prevent successful reproduction.
Jump another 500,000 years and the probability of such differences is quite high.
At this stage, each one will be the same species as its parent or offspring - it is a continous distribution. The actual lines between species is blurry to say the least; it is not a case of 'one or the other'.
Continue further and each successive generation, through Homo erectus, Homo habilis, and Homo Ergaster will eventually become more like our shared chimp-ancestor cousins.

And when you really look at the evidence - ring species, mutations, medicine (pathogenic evolution and immune responses) fossil record, anatomy, genetic evidence etc - it really does effectively prove evolution as very close to the truth, if not total truth.
Most of this post is shamelessly lifted - but not copied - from The Ancestor's Tale by Professor Richard Dawkins.

 

[AV1611VET]

I’ve addressed this before in this thread, and I’m still waiting to see whether you’re going to answer what I asked you about it there. Here it is again:

It's one thing for the Bible to predict the physical world; it's quite another for the physical world to interpret the Bible.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

It's one thing for the Bible to predict the physical world; it's quite another for the physical world to interpret the Bible.

I would not dream of interpreting the bible, my imagination and self delusion could never be stretched that far.

Perhaps some LSD would help, at least then you could see some magical mysticism, but not really because it would all be in one’s own head.

I KNOW “SPIKE THE WORLD”

 

[AV1611VET]

I would not dream of interpreting the bible, my imagination and self delusion could never be stretched that far.

Perhaps some LSD would help, at least then you could see some magical mysticism, but not really because it would all be in one’s own head.

I KNOW “SPIKE THE WORLD”

LSD is the scientific way to escape reality.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

LSD is the scientific way to escape reality.

And creationism is the non scientific way.

 

[AV1611VET]

LSD is the scientific way to escape reality.

And creationism is the non scientific way.

Then "scientists" give us the impetus to stare into the sun, Christians give us an impetus to stare into the Son.

 

[Blayz]

Then "scientists" give us the impetus to stare into the sun

You don't want to be doing that, that'll turn you blind.

Christians give us an impetus to stare into the Son.

And that'll get you arrested.

 

[AV1611VET]

And that'll get you arrested.

Seriously? In Australia they arrest Christians?

 

[Blayz]

Seriously? In Australia they arrest Christians?

?

Of course. Don't they arrest them everywhere? How can you be an Xtian without a healthy dose of persecution?

 

[AV1611VET]

?

Of course. Don't they arrest them everywhere? How can you be an Xtian without a healthy dose of persecution?

Blayz, do they arrest Christians in Australia? Yes or no, please.

I'd really like to know.

 

[razzelflabben]

Before I post my two cents worth, I want to once again try to make it clear here that I am not a creationist and so I would appreciate you all accepting that rather than to try to make me something I am not.

Now my comment. What amazes me about this argument is that evolutionists seem to think that creation or the bible don't accept or acknowledge or agree with genetics. The reality is that Gen. touches on genetics, you know way way back before people knew anything about genetics, the idea and a basic understanding was mentioned. Thus, when you talk about salamanders ring stuff, you are asking creation to defend what they should be accepting within the understanding. There should be no conflict if the bible is the absolute they are going by, so why make it sound like it is? I don't get it, if you want to defeat a creationist why not attack on something that wouldn't fit their belief? What do you gain by this line of questioning?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Blayz, do they arrest Christians in Australia? Yes or no, please.

I'd really like to know.

I think he was making an allusion to either:

• "Stare into the Sun", or
• "Stare into the underage boy"

The latter is probably an offence, not sure about the former.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think he was making an allusion to either:

• "Stare into the Sun", or
• "Stare into the underage boy"

The latter is probably an offence, not sure about the former.

Do, what???

I think the question must be too hard for him to answer.

I notice you guys are quick with put-downs and smark-alecky answers; but legitimate answers come slower than a snail in molasses.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

LSD is the scientific way to escape reality.

It’s also quite good at expanding the mind. Interestingly hallucinogenic drugs have been used by many cultures to invoke visions of their gods. Perhaps you should try it; the effects can be quite amazing.